Szobozlai is not all that - Liverpool paid £60m for him, he played 3,300 minutes in all competitions and was involved in 17 goals… Arsenal paid less than half for Merino and with 800 minutes less only has 3 fewer goal involvements.
Tonali, I like better than Szobozlai, but he too played 3200 minutes for 9 goal contributions and Newcastle spent over £50m on him. Havertz was injured for a large part of the season and had 20 goal contributions.
Basically you like two players because they don’t play for Arsenal but if they did and Arsenal spent £110m on them, you would be slating the club for that spend for a poor return.
I’m not the biggest Tonali fan but goal involvements aren’t really what he is to be judged on.
He’s primarily a defensive midfielder.
Agree with you on Szoboszlai though as he lacks technical ability, he’s pretty much a runner and pressing machine for Liverpool. He’s very similar to someone like Mount, lacks playmaking ability and doesn’t run the game in the way someone who plays the #10 for a top team should. Not my cup of tea at all.
I agree with Tonali being a defensive midfielder - only reason I mentioned goal involvements was because they were mentioned as the “Perfect Xhaka replacements.”.
Merino and Havertz made nearly all those goal contributions as a striker though, after they proved to not be good enough/unsuitable in the original midfield roles they were signed to play, so I don’t really see it as fair to compare their goal involvement numbers to the numbers of players who actually played in midfield
Imo Havertz and Trossard were brought in for goal contributions and their ability to press/win the ball higher up the field. Neither played as a typical striker even when featured up top.
Szobolzai started 28 games and had 66 shots at goal, 23 on target. Merino started 16 games and had 35 shots, with 15 on target. Those are pretty similar numbers except Merino cost 50% of Szobolzai, so if Szobolzai isn’t there for goal contributions, why is he having so many shots at goal?
Ok, you do make a bit of a fair point on Szoboslai there, I didn’t realise he had taken so many shots. But I’d say my point is still sound regarding using Tonali as a point of comparison.
I think szobo was really good for Liverpool this season, his energy was critical to how they played, just got overshadowed by gravenberch having a great season as well.
It’s really not my construction of midfield but they really just largely continued the style that klopp built in the middle of the park. High energy triple b2b midfield with a decent-good technical ability.
The number of games they failed to control shows why I don’t like the midfield setup but can’t argue it’s efficient and dangerous on the break.
I agree with Tonali. However, the post I responded to initally was comparing Szobozlai and Tonali with Merino and Havertz and the “Xhaka role” - in the final season Xhaka did so well, it was a progressive role. So cannot be moaning about the £100m spent on Havertz and Merino and specifically mention Szobolzai and Tonali with specific reference to a position/role and not expect the comparisons.
Merino and Havertz get the vast majority of their G/As playing as a striker.
Comparing their numbers to Szboz and Tonali who are midfielders is comparing apples to oranges.
The original purpose of signing those guys was to replace Xhaka. 3 years later, it seems like Rice now has to own the role, cause the two guys we bought for that role didn’t work out.
You are the one who specifically mentioned the 2 players at other clubs vs 2 players we actually bought - but then it’s unfair to compare them
I dont believe either Havertz or Merino were bought to specifically replace Xhaka.
What position was Rice bought for - has the ability to cover as CDM but was not bought for that - he was bought to progress the midfield. He came out and explained how different his new role was at Arsenal. If anything (and I dont believe we wanted a like for like replacement), he was the replacement for Xhaka.
Tonali is defensive, so would not be suitable for the Xhaka role you want replaced. You chose to bring up who we signed vs other players you feel we should have signed for a role I dont even believe we tried to fill.
I don’t know, just like you don’t, so it is all guesswork. However, I think Merino was bought solely as cover and physicality to see out games.
Havertz, I don’t think was signed for a specifc role (but was signed to be a starter), I think he was signed for his age, versatility (ability to play multiple roles and formations), movement, height, physicality, work rate and ability to produce in big games previously. I have to assume Arteta felt with a bit of confidence, he would also improve his scoring (and in spells he was OK).
Versatility is a very important trait if you look at the majority of our signings.
